The Origin of State Societies in South America

20 Aug 2001 10:21 AR AR141B-03.tex AR141B-03.SGM ARv2(2001/05/10)P1: GSR

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2001. 30:41–64Copyright c© 2001 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved

THE ORIGIN OF STATE SOCIETIES

IN SOUTH AMERICA

Charles StanishDepartment of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles,California 90095–1553; e-mail: [email protected]

Key Words state formation, cultural evolution, Andes, chiefdoms, states

■ Abstract The earliest states developed in the central Andean highlands and alongthe central Pacific coast of western South America. The consensus in the archaeologicalliterature is that state societies first developed in the central Andes in the early part of thefirst millenniumC.E. A minority opinion holds that first-generation states developedas early as the late second millenniumB.C.E. in the same area. The Andean regionconstitutes one of a few areas of first-generation state development in the world. Thisarea therefore represents an important case study for the comparative analysis of stateformation. This article outlines the arguments for state formation in South America,presents the evidence, analyzes the underlying assumptions about these arguments, andassesses the South American data in terms of contemporary anthropological theory ofstate evolution.

SOUTH AMERICA

South America, a continent approximately 17,870,000 km2 in size, has been di-vided into as few as three and as many as two dozen different cultural areasby anthropologists (Willey 1971, pp. 17–24). Borrowing on the earlier work ofWissler (1922, pp. 245–57) and Bennett (1946, p. 1), Lumbreras (1981, p. 42)provides the most common cultural geographical division of South America: theAndes, the Llanos, Amazonia, the Chaco, the Pampas, and Patagonia (Figure 1).First-generation states evolved only in the central and south central part of onearea, the Andes. This area, referred to collectively as the central Andes, wouldcorrespond to parts of Wissler’s Inca area and to all of Willey’s Peruvian culturalarea (Willey 1971, p. 4). Bordered on the west by the Pacific Ocean, this culturallyprecocious region stretches from roughly the Peru-Ecuador border in the north, tothe low forests of Peru and Bolivia in the east, and south to the southern part ofthe Titicaca Basin in Bolivia.

0084-6570/01/1021-0041$14.00 41


42 STANISH

Figure 1 South American cultural areas.


ORIGIN OF SOUTH AMERICAN STATES 43

THE CENTRAL ANDES

The central Andes extends over 1,000,000 km2 and includes some of the world’sdriest deserts, rugged mountainsides and peaks, highland grasslands, and lowforests (Figure 2). At the time of European contact, the central Andes was home toseveral dozen distinct ethnic and linguistic groups. In spite of this diversity, the ideathat the central Andes is culturally unified and homogenous has been a subtext inanthropological and historical studies since at least the European conquest. A goodargument can be made that such a bias developed directly out of Inca and Spanish

Figure 2 The central Andes.


44 STANISH

imperial propaganda that promoted the cultural unity of empire. It is therefore notsurprising that many definitions of the Andean or central Andean cultural areacorrespond rather neatly to the Incan imperial boundaries in the 1530s.

If one used the political and linguistic boundaries of the later first millenniumC.E., there would be a very different picture. AroundC.E. 600 there were threerelatively distinct cultural, linguistic, political, and geographical areas in the centralAndes. The Moche culture developed in the northern coastal desert. In this area,people spoke Mochica and related dialects (Torero 1990). In the central highlands,the Wari state dominated the political landscape. Most likely, an ancestral formof Quechua was spoken in this region. The people of Tiwanaku ruled the southcentral Andeanaltiplano, or high plains. In this region, Aymara, Pukina, and relateddialects were the dominant languages in the sixteenth century, and we presumethat some form of proto-Aymara (Aru) and/or Pukina was spoken in this area atthe time of Tiwanaku. Each of these areas has its own research traditions. Giventhat this discussion focuses on the origin of the state and that many archaeologistspoint to these three regions as home to the earliest states, these areas structure thisdiscussion.

DEFINING THE STATE

Flannery (1998, pp. 15–16; 1999) makes the essential point that the definition of thestate is a task for anthropologists and political scientists working with ethnographicor historical data. The role of archaeologists, in contrast, is to define the materialindicators of this phenomenon and then assess the data to define the emergence ofthe state. The anthropological definitions of the state, as well as its material indi-cators in the archaeological record, are closely linked to the theoretical frameworkin which the concept of the state is developed. Definitions that focus on politicalpower and social classes tend to define states broadly, with many archaeologicalcases fitting into the definition. In most neomarxist frameworks, the existence ofsocial classes in and of itself is the defining feature of state organization. SilvaSantisteban (1997, p. 22), for instance, argues that the existence of any monumentthat is significantly large or elaborate enough to indicate group labor above thehousehold, is evidence for state organization. In his words, “. . . the presence ofa ceremonial center [is] tangible evidence of the sociopolitical formation that wecall a State” (Silva Santisteban 1997, p. 101). A theoretically similar position isadvocated by Haas (1987, p. 32), who also sees the exercise of economic powerto be the essential variable in the definition of the state. In the Andes accordingto this definition, large earthen constructions reflect concentrated economic powerand a state organization (Haas 1987, p. 22).

A more common view is that monumental architectural construction precedesthe state in western South America. In this view, nonstate societies are fully capableof amassing sufficient labor to build large monuments, usually through religious or“theocratic” means (Burger 1995, p. 37; Fung Pineda 1988, p. 80; Moseley 1975,



1992). Moseley refers to complex, prestate societies as “civilizations,” in whichhierarchy can exist without hereditary rank (M.E. Moseley, personal communica-tion). In this context, the ideology represents the community, not individuals orelite groups, and corporate architecture is created to provide focus for commu-nity rituals and the materialization of chief ideologies (e.g. DeMarrais et al 1996,Dillehay 1992).

In models that emphasize the religious functions of early monumental construc-tions, the state develops after the shift from a kin-based, chief “hierarchy at theservice of the collectivity” (Albarracin-Jordan 1996, p. 70) to a hierarchy headedby a state elite that acts largely in its own interest. The state is defined by a series offactors that distinguish it from chief, kin-based organization. The relative impor-tance of these factors is based upon the particular theoretical framework in whichthey are proposed. In the Andes, factors that have been proposed are generallyconsistent with the literature on state formation from around the world.

THE EMERGENCE OF COMPLEX SOCIETYIN THE LATE PRECERAMIC PERIOD

At the beginning of the fourth millenniumB.C.E., all peoples in South Americalived in small hunting, gathering, and horticultural camps, or, on rare occasions,in small semipermanent villages. By 3000–2500B.C.E., the first fully sedentaryand complex societies developed on the Pacific coast of Peru. Social complexityin the Andean archaeological record is generally indicated by the existence oflarge monuments that have functions beyond domestic residence and subsistence.Andean archaeologists refer to such architecture by several terms, including corpo-rate, civic-ceremonial, elite-ceremonial, ritual, or public architecture. Settlementsthat have pyramids, courts, walled plazas, and so forth are considered to be or-ganizationally more complex than politically egalitarian villages. The theoreticallink between corporate architecture, a term first proposed by Moseley (1975), andcultural complexity rests on the premise that the monuments were built by, andmeant to be seen and used by, a social group larger than a few families.

The Coast

Beginning around 3000B.C.E., a few societies with a predominantly nonagricul-tural subsistence base built corporate monuments on the Peruvian coast. The siteof Aspero, located on the northern edge of the Supe River adjacent to the PacificOcean, represents one of these early settlements. The earliest phases of corpo-rate construction began around 2800–2000B.C.E. (Feldman 1987, p. 12; Moseley1992a, p. 117) (dates uncorrected unless noted otherwise). One large monumentis the Huaca de los Idolos, a flat-topped pyramid 1500 m2 in size used for ritualdisplay (Feldman 1987, p. 11; Moseley 1992a, p. 115). Along with this pyramid,Aspero has 12–15 hectares (ha) of domestic midden areas, and 17 other pyramids


46 STANISH

between 1.0 and 4.0 m high. Excavations at the site reveal a pattern of continu-ally rebuilt constructions by a resident population, a pattern found at many sitesthroughout the coastal valleys at this time.

Perhaps the largest settlement of this time period is located 2 km from thecoast in the Chillón valley and is known as El Para´ıso. According to Quilter(1985, p. 294) and Moseley (1992a, p. 119), the major construction at the sitewas in progress by 2000B.C.E., and it continued to be occupied for two to fourcenturies. The 100,000 tons of stone masonry construction is found in at leastseven mounds that form a giant U shape over 58 ha (Quilter 1985, p. 279). It hasa huge, 7.0-ha plaza located between the arms of the U. Many structures wereelaborately decorated. In particular, one structure was painted red and had a brightorange burnt floor with evidence of fire rituals. Moseley (1992a, p. 120) notesthat artifacts include red pigment grinders, bird feathers, unfired figurines, andfruit tree branches. Earlier, we believed that there was little evidence for permanenthabitation at the site. However, later work indicates that it indeed had a residentpopulation (Fung Pineda 1988; Quilter 1991b, p. 427; Quilter 1991a; Quilter et al1991).

Another large Preceramic site is known as Chupacigarro or Caral. Locatedinland in the Supe valley, the site is an impressive 50-ha Preceramic settlementthat includes circular structures with ramps 50–80 m in diameter (Engel 1987),25 pyramids up to 25 m high, and evidence of a sedentary population (SilvaSantisteban 1997, pp. 103–4).

The three sites of Chupacigarro, Aspero, and El Para´ıso are located in differentecological zones. They represent the geographically broad settlement distributionof major Preceramic sites, including the immediate coast, a site within a short walkfrom the ocean, and an inland site well away from the marine resources. Thesethree examples indicate that the first monumental architecture was constructedin different ecological zones, where access to marine and agricultural resourcesvaried greatly.

The Central Highlands

During the late Preceramic, a widespread building and ritual tradition developedamong a number of formerly egalitarian highland communities as well. This hasbeen called the “Kotosh Religious Tradition” by Burger & Burger (1980). At thetype site of Kotosh, Burger (1995, p. 47) describes two artificial mounds and aseries of superimposed temples. The highest mound was 14 m high and had athree-tiered platform with numerous chambers built into the base. There are atleast 11 chambers and possibly up to 100 chambers at Kotosh itself (Burger 1995,p. 48; Izumi & Terada 1972). A prominent feature of this architectural tradition issmall buildings, usually plastered and decorated with firepits in the floor. One of themost spectacular of these Preceramic structures is the Temple of the Crossed Handsat Kotosh. Other sites in the highlands, such as Huaricoto, La Galgada (Grieder et al1988b), and Piruru (Bonnier & Rozenberg 1988), have similar ritual constructions,



but the amount of labor and architectural complexity of each site varies. Paintingsof serpents, niches in the walls, fire ritual, and repeated burying and rebuilding ofthe structures are some of the salient features of the Kotosh Religious Tradition.

La Galgada is a particularly important Preceramic period site that participatedin the Kotosh tradition. Around 2300B.C.E., the people at this site constructedelaborate round chambers with fire pits. Significant features of La Galgada includea circular court 17 m in diameter, the existence of “megalithic shaft tombs” (Grieder1988, p. 73; Grieder & Bueno 1985, p. 108), and exotic objects in the fire pits.

The architecture of the Kotosh Religious Tradition is different from contem-porary coastal sites. In the highlands, corporate architecture is characterized bysingle, free-standing buildings with separate entrances and no internal connect-ions. There is no evidence for site planning, restricted access, or formal designs thatwere replicated across sites (Burger 1995, p. 51). In contrast, coastal traditions werecharacterized by much larger buildings with patterns of restricted access, althoughat least one site, Huaynuná in the Casma, has a ventilated hearth similar to theKotosh Tradition (Pozorski & Pozorski 1990). Certainly, in both coast and sierra,monumental architecture was widespread by the beginning of the second millen-nium B.C.E.

Late Preceramic States?

The late Preceramic period witnessed the emergence of the first nonegalit-arian societies in South America. On the Pacific coast, it is clear that some of the ear-liest settlements did not rely on agriculture for a significant proportion of their diet.Moseley (1975, 1985, 1992a, 1992b) has persuasively argued that many Prece-ramic coastal populations were based predominantly on the exploitation of marineresources. His “maritime hypothesis” has been supported by excavations at As-pero, Huaca Prieta, and other sites (Quilter & Stocker 1983, but see Wilson 1981).This work indicates that an economy based heavily on marine products was suffi-cient to support the construction of monumental architecture.

It is significant that cultigens are also found in Preceramic period middens.While marine resources were the staple in coastal Preceramic sites, the inhabitantsalso utilized both wild and cultivated food and industrial crops (Feldman 1987,p. 9; Pozorski & Pozorski 1990; Quilter & Stocker 1983) such as cotton, gourd,legumes,achira, and squash. Other Preceramic period sites were located away fromthe littoral. Settlements such as Chupacigarro exploited a mix of plant agriculturalproducts and the collection wild foods. Marine resources at the site were obtainedby exchange with other groups and/or direct exploitation.

In the highlands large Preceramic monuments were constructed in economiesbased largely on rain-fed and small-scale irrigation agriculture, plus the elabora-tion of exchange networks (Fung Pineda 1988, p. 71). Burger (1995, p. 32, 53)notes that marine fish bone and shell have been found at all Preceramic highlandsites that have corporate architecture and notes that the population of Salinas deChao controlled salt production and exchange (but cf. Pozorski & Pozorski 1990,


48 STANISH

p. 24). In short, there are solid cultural links between the highlands, coast, andeven eastern slopes in the late Preceramic (Bonavia & Grobman 1979; Quilter &Stocker 1983, pp. 554–55).

The consensus in the literature is that the late Preceramic period representsat most the development of ranked society typical of simple chiefdoms in theevolutionary anthropological literature. Terms used to describe this organizationinclude “chiefdoms” (Feldman 1987), “societies with labor organizing leaders”(Bawden 1999, p. 172) “centralized, nonstate polities,” and “regional centers”(Quilter 1991a). Certainly, the data indicate that there was no one site that was acenter of a regional polity. Rather, there were a series of autonomous settlementsof varying complexity up and down the coast. Few scholars argue that any politicalorganization as complex as the state developed in the Preceramic. One exception isSilva Santisteban (1997, pp. 100–2), who argues that the pristine state had formedby 2300B.C.E. on the Peruvian coast.

THE INITIAL PERIOD

The Coast

The Initial period dates from circa 2000–1800B.C.E. to circa 900–600B.C.E. TheInitial period witnessed a rapid growth in the size of sites, development of architec-tural complexity, and general social complexity based on late Preceramic periodantecedents. Several regional architectural styles emerged in this period. One ofthese is known as the U-shaped architectural tradition, first described by Williams(1971, also see Carrión Sotelo 1998 for an example of a recent field study). Theideal layout was composed of a high, flat-topped pyramid mound flanked in thefront by two projecting linear structures to form a large U.

The site of Huaca La Florida, located 11 km inland in the R´ımac valley, is oneof the oldest of the classic U-shaped structures so far studied (Von Hagen & Morris1998, p. 51). The main pyramid is 17 m high and the two projecting structuresrise 4 m from base for approximately 500 m. Construction at the site began in theeighteenth centuryB.C.E. Burger estimates that the site required 6.7 million person-days of labor. He notes that it is not even the largest of the U-shaped sites on thecoast. The little-known site of San Jacinto in the Chancay valley is four times aslarge, with a 30-ha plaza and two million cubic meters of fill (Burger 1995, p. 61).While centered on the central coast of Peru, this U-shaped architectural traditionhas been noted as far south as the Lake Titicaca Basin (Stanish & Steadman 1994,p. 13) and as far north as Piura (Guffroy 1989, pp. 161–207).

A second architectural tradition of the Initial period centers on the constructionof sunken, circular courts usually next to pyramids. This tradition, concentratednorth of the Chancay valley, has been found in at least 50 sites. Many of these arelocated in the Supe valley (Burger 1995, p. 76). A third architectural tradition isknown as Cupisnique, characterized by low platform pyramids, large stairways, andrectangular courts. Colonnades and elaborate painted sculptures distinguish this



architecture (Burger 1995, p. 92). The architectural complex known as Huaca delos Reyes at the site of Caballo Muerto is emblematic of this late Initial period style.Ware-feline motifs executed as adobe friezes adorn this huaca (Conklin 1996).

One of the richest areas of the Initial period culture is the Casma valley. By1400B.C.E. or perhaps earlier, the site of Sechin Alto was the largest settlement inthe Western Hemisphere (Burger 1995, p. 80, Moseley 1992a, pp. 123–24, Tello1956). It is dominated by a huge, stone masonry platform 300 m in length and250 m in width that forms the base of a U-shaped center.

Located near Sechin Alto is the site of Cerro Sechin. The oldest constructionat Cerro Sechin was built on a stepped platform with three levels (Samaniegoet al 1985, p. 173). In this early Initial period, the site covered only about 5 ha. Apossible sunken court was located in the front of this pyramid and noted long agoby Tello. Perhaps the most outstanding feature of Cerro Sechin is the numerouscarvings in stone on the outer wall of the pyramid. These early Initial periodcarvings depict macabre scenes of war, including decapitations, trophy heads, andbody parts, plus warriors and victims in various states of subjugation.

The Casma valley site of Pampa de las Llamas-Moxeke stands as one of the mostimportant Initial period sites in the Andes. The site has two huge artificial mounds,plaza areas, other buildings, and a substantial habitation area. The Moxeke moundmeasures 160× 170× 30 m and is decorated with elaborate friezes along itsflanks. The second mound, known as Huaca A, measures 140× 140 m at its baseand reaches up to 9 m inheight. Both of the mounds are aligned along a centralaxis. These two aligned pyramids demarcate high-walled enclosures, a pattern thatsuggests a surprisingly high degree of site planning. Pozorski & Pozorski (1994,p. 67) note that middens up to 1.5 m deep are found at the edges of the corporatearchitecture. This residential debris, at least 110 “administrative” buildings, plusthe mounds and enclosures cover up to 200 ha, although the total area of purelyresidential midden and corporate architecture is less that 75 ha.

The Casma valley data, as well as that from other valleys, indicate that thenorth Pacific coast was a major area of cultural development in the Initial period.However, the highlands also witnessed the rise of architecturally complex andlarge settlements as well.


U-shaped structures were built at sites throughout the highlands during the Initialperiod. At La Galgada, ritual architectural styles shifted away from the earlierfire-pit tradition. Likewise, this period witnessed the construction of a U-shapedbuilding on a Preceramic temple mound, and the continuation of large buri-als (Grieder et al 1988b, pp. 202–3). Significant architectural monuments wereerected at Kuntur Wasi in Huacaloma, Poro Poro, at the site of Chav´ın, and atdozens of other highland settlements (Burger 1995, pp. 109–112; Shady 1993).Construction at Chav´ın began by at least 900B.C.E., and possibly earlier (Ricket al 1998, p. 208). The settlement witnessed the building of a number of corporate


50 STANISH

architectural features. During this period Chav´ın was the center of a highland styleof elite pottery, textile, and stone art.

The South Central Highlands

The first construction of corporate architecture in the south central Andean high-lands began in the Titicaca Basin around 1300B.C.E. Hastorf (1999) and her col-leagues have uncovered corporate structures at the site of Chiripa, located in Boliviain the south Titicaca Basin. These early small rooms were built with uncut stone,had plastered floors and walls, and were sometimes built low into the ground. Overtime, this architectural style became more elaborate. The plastered area becamelarger, rooms were added to the exteriors, the floors were sunk deeper into theground, and walled terraces were built around the entire architectural complex. By900B.C.E., Chiripa was a nucleated habitation and ceremonial center spread over7.5 ha (Bandy 1999, p. 26).

By the first centuries of the first millenniumB.C.E., many peoples built elaboratesunken courts in the entire Titicaca region. Along with the corporate architecture,a new suite of ritual artifacts was introduced. These include ceramic trumpets,flat-bottomed bowls, and stone carvings (Chávez & Mohr Chavez 1975). In thenorth basin, the Qaluyu culture flourished from as early as 1300B.C.E. up to 500B.C.E. The type site of Qaluyu is a large mound and associated domestic habitationareas that cover at least 7 ha. There are a number of sunken courts on the mound. Astone temple wall was discovered in Qaluyu levels at the site of Pucara, located afew kilometers to the south (Wheeler & Mujica 1981). Other large Qaluyu sites arefound in Ayaviri and Putina in the north (Plourde 1999). In short, throughout theTiticaca Basin from 1300B.C.E. to circa 500B.C.E., a few peoples in some villagesstarted constructing elaborate court complexes, intensified interregional exchange,and intensified ritual behavior.

Initial Period States?

There is a wide difference of opinion regarding the level of political complexityin the Initial period. According to Pozorski (1987, p. 15) and Pozorski & Pozorski(1994, p. 70), early Initial period Pampa de las Llamas-Moxeke was the centerof a “simple theocratic state” with a population of 2500–3000. It was linked toother sites in the Casma valley, placing Pampa de la Llamas-Moxeke at the top ofa sitesize hierarchy. They point to numerous elite objects on Huaca A, includingturquoise beads, figurines, and textiles, which suggests that this was a palace. Theylikewise argue that there was both elite- and low-status housing at the site and thatthe entire settlement was planned. Instead of one single site that can be identifiedas the first state, they argue that states developed among a number of polities in theMoche, Casma, Supe, and Chillón valleys in the north and central Peruvian coast(Pozorski & Pozorski 1987, p. 45).

Burger (1995, p. 75) views the Initial period as characterized by 20 or so “weak-ly stratified small-scale societies with highly developed religious institutions.”



Burger notes that there is no state architecture typical of known states in the An-des, little evidence of economic specialization, an absence of workshops, and agreat deal of variation between settlements. Schreiber (2001) agrees, viewing theInitial period as a time of simple chiefdom development. It is important to empha-size our lack of systematic regional research in the area. In those regions wheresurveys are conducted, we find dozens of early sites with monumental architecture(e.g. Vega-Centeno et al 1998). In short, the Initial period cultural landscape waspopulated with thousands of corporate buildings on hundreds of sites of varyingsizes and complexity. The evidence suggests the existence of local polities withlittle regional integration with no single site that can be described as a politicalcenter of a multivalley polity.

THE EARLY HORIZON

The Early Horizon dates from circa 900B.C.E. to 200B.C.E. and corresponds tothe first pan-Andean art style known as Chav´ın in the central highlands and thecoast. This period corresponds to the last half of the Middle Formative (1300–500B.C.E.) and the early part of the Upper Formative (500B.C.E. to C.E. 400) in thesouth central Andes.

The Coast and Central Highlands

There was a widespread collapse of coastal polities just prior to the Early Horizon.Construction of architectural monuments was halted in progress at sites suchas Cardal, Mina Perdida, Taukachi-Konkan, Sech´ın Bajo, Sech´ın Alto, and LasHaldas (Burger 1995, pp. 183–85; Fung Pineda 1988, p. 89; Greider 1975, p. 101).Likewise, a number of sites with different architectural and pottery styles were es-tablished in Casma, such as Pampa Rosario, San Diego, and Chankillo. Chankillohas traditionally been interpreted as a fortress, but some recent interpretations sug-gest that it served ritual purposes instead. Other unequivocal defensive sites wereestablished throughout the region. In the Santa valley during the Early Horizon,Wilson discovered a number of fortified settlements (1988, p. 100). Some arguefor an invasion of highlanders into the coast during the Early Horizon (Pozorski1987), while others feel that the evidence points to local changes (Burger 1995,p. 189).

In contrast to the coastal cultures, the cultures of the highlands prospered duringthe Early Horizon. The site of Chav´ın increased in size and power. Constructionat Chav´ın continued up to at least 400B.C.E. and possibly two centuries later(Rick et al 1998, p. 208). Regional data suggest an aggregation of the surround-ing sites into a 42-ha settlement by 400–200B.C.E. with a population of 2000–3000 (Burger 1995, p. 168). At 20 times larger than any surrounding settlement,Chavın emerged as a true political center. Exchange with other Andean regions,including the coast, flourished, and there is evidence of the importation of prestige


52 STANISH

goods and local economic specialization. The prosperity was not limited to Chav´ın.Pacopampa, Kotosh, La Pampa, Kuntur Wasi, and other highland sites grew in sizeand complexity as well (Silverman 1996, p. 120).


From approximately 400B.C.E. to C.E. 200, the site of Pucara dominated the nor-thern Titicaca Basin. Estimates of the size of Pucara range from 2.0–4.0 km2

(Erickson 1988). The main architectural feature of Pucara is a series of massiveterraces that lead up to a flat area with three, stone-slab–lined, sunken courts. Thelargest court measures about 16× 16 m in size and is 2.2 m deep (Chávez 1988,Kidder 1943). A dense habitation area is located in front of the large terraces.Likewise, there are a number of mounds that most likely held sunken courts aswell. Pucara pottery and sculpture show links to contemporary coastal Paracasand Early Tiwanaku, with antecedents in Chav´ın (Cook 1994, p. 186; Conklin &Moseley 1988; Silverman 1996).

The site of Tiwanaku, located in the southern Titicaca Basin, was occupied atthis time as well. We do not know the size and complexity of Upper Forma-tive period Tiwanaku because later constructions covered 4–6 km2 with temples,pyramids, and other buildings. Limited test excavations at the site suggest thatTiwanaku was probably about as large as Pucara during the Upper Formative, butthis remains speculative.

Early Horizon States?

Obviously, for those who view Chupacigarro and Pampa de las Llamas-Moxekeas states, polities such as Chav´ın and Pucara would be second-generation states.Many argue that the Early Horizon ceremonial centers were centers of regional cultsor pilgrimage destinations that, while complex, do not meet the definition of a statesociety (Burger 1989, pp. 557–60; 1995, pp. 193–200). Schreiber (2001) viewsthe Early Horizon coastal and north highland polities as complex chiefdoms, andMoseley (1992a, p. 159) suggests the existence of two regional political spheres,Chavın in the north and Pucara-Paracas in the south, that dominated the area asoracle centers.

The regional cult model was developed by Silverman using the site of Cahuachias a case study (1990, 1991). Silverman (1995, p. 27) argues that this Nasca settle-ment did not have a urban population. She views it as a “complex non-state societyor ranked society or chiefdom-level society,” but not a state-level organization.This model provides a means by which a large settlement, with substantial archi-tecture, could be constructed in a nonstate context. Burger (1988) likewise arguesthat the Early Horizon centers could be analogous to the historically documentedpilgrimage center at Pachacamac. In the pilgrimage center model, many of thesurface attributes of state organization can exist—large centers, widespread dis-tribution of art styles, and so forth—without the actual socioeconomic hierarchiesthat anthropologists see as central to state organization.



THE EARLY INTERMEDIATE AND MIDDLE HORIZON

A poorly understood culture that is known as Gallinazo developed on the northcoast during the Early Intermediate period. In the Virú valley, the GallinazoGroup was a town of several thousand people (Bawden 1999, p. 187). There was asubstantial Gallinazo occupation in the Moche valley as well. Gallinazo is usuallybelieved to antedate the Moche, although some evidence suggests at least somechronological overlap between the two (Bawden 1999, p. 190). With large set-tlements, impressive platform pyramids, extensive agricultural systems, and thelike, some scholars have argued that Gallinazo was in fact a state-level society(e.g., Fogel 1993). Certainly, many of the cultural patterns seen in the Mocheculture have direct antecedents to Gallinazo.

The Coastal Moche

In the north coast, the late Early Intermediate period Moche culture developed asa multivalley political entity by the fourth centuryC.E. (Bawden 1999; Shimada1994, p. 95; Wilson 1988). The capital of the Moche polity is located in theMoche valley at the site of Moche. It is dominated by two main pyramids—theHuaca del Sol and Huaca de la Luna. The largest of these two, the Huaca del Sol,measures about 160× 340 m in size and stands 40 m in height. It was one ofthe largest prehispanic monuments constructed in the Western Hemisphere. TheMoche capital is unequivocally an urban settlement, perhaps the first true city inthe Andes. It is characterized by a system of streets, canals, plazas, architecturalgroups, areas of craft specialization, and so forth (Uceda & Mujica 1998).

Moche-related sites are found throughout the north coast. Some scholars havesuggested that there were two Moche spheres, a northern and a southern (Shimada1994). The famous site of Sipán in the northern valley of Lambayeque containedone of the most elaborate Moche burials yet discovered. The date of the Lord ofSipan burial is early in Moche culture, aroundC.E. 150–200, which suggests thesimultaneous emergence of elite centers of power that shared Moche iconography.Bawden provides a map of the early and middle Moche polity that suggests a dis-continuous territory until Moche V, again reinforcing the notion of a simultaneousrise of the state culminating in Moche as its capital.


The Upper Formative period site of Pucara ended as a political center no laterthanC.E. 400. AroundC.E. 600, the Tiwanaku state began an aggressive expansionout of the southern Titicaca Basin. The site of Tiwanaku is a vast, planned urbancapital that sprawled over the altiplano landscape in the southern Titicaca Basin.At its height inC.E. 800–900, Tiwanaku boasted an impressive architectural coreof pyramids, temples, palaces, streets, and state buildings. Surrounding the core ofthe capital was an urban settlement of nonelite artisans, laborers, and farmers wholived in adobe structures up and down the valley (Janusek 1999). Current estimatessuggest that the total urban settlement covers 4–6 km2 in area, with a population


54 STANISH

in the Tiwanaku valley ranging from 30,000 to 60,000 (Janusek 1999, Kolata &Ponce 1992). Large areas of intensified agricultural production are associated withTiwanaku and pre-Tiwanaku populations around the basin (Erickson 1988, Kolata1986, Stanish 1994). The combined population of these settlements and the capitalitself would have been quite substantial at the height of the Tiwanaku state, possiblyreaching 100,000 people in the Tiwanaku and adjacent Katari valleys.

Tiwanaku artifacts and colonies are found throughout the circum-Titicaca basinand beyond. A well-documented Tiwanaku colony is found in Moquegua(Goldstein 1993). In the Cochabamba region of Bolivia, Anderson & CespedesPaz (1998) argue for a Tiwanaku colony (but see Higueras-Hare 1996). Probablecolonial areas have been identified in the Larecaja region of Bolivia (Fald´ın 1990),the Arequipa area, and Azapa (Goldstein 1995/1996). Recent settlement archaeol-ogy in the Titicaca Basin suggests that the Tiwanaku selectively controlled areasthroughout the region. Tiwanaku did not, or could not, practice a small versionof Inca statecraft by incorporating large, contiguous areas. Rather, it appears tohave controlled economically and militarily strategic areas, including roads, richagricultural areas, and resource-rich zones.


The site and culture of Wari represent an autochthonous expansive state thatemerged in the middle of the first millenniumC.E. in the central highlands roughlyparallel in time to Tiwanaku. The capital site contains about 200 ha of stone ar-chitecture and another 300 ha of domestic residence around this architectural core(Schreiber 1987; 1992, p. 80). Up to 15 km2 of site area has been cited as beingpart of the Wari urban complex (Isbell et al 1991, Schreiber 2001). The proportionof core architecture to domestic, nonelite architecture, and the overall size of thesite is quite similar to contemporary Tiwanaku.

Wari stretches from the Cuzco area in the south to Cajamarca in Middle Horizon1B (Schreiber 1992, p. 77). There are several provincial Wari settlements.Pikillacta, located near Cuzco, is built on a grid, has 700 individual structures,is 2 km2 in size, and is the center of intrusive garrisons of Wari settlements inthe Lucre valley (McEwan 1991, p. 93–100). Likewise, the site of Jincamoccoin the Carhuarazo valley represents an intrusive Wari settlement that differs fromlocal sites based on size, artifact inventory, and architectural plan (Meddens 1991;Schreiber 1992, p. 165). Like Pikillacta, the main enclosure was laid out as a sin-gle unit. The site conforms to Wari architectural canons with large, subdividedcompounds of patios surrounded by peripheral galleries inside a single, large, andwell-defined rectangular enclosure with a thick outer wall (Schreiber 1992, p. 200).These and other Wari sites indicate a rigidity of overall plan in Wari provincialarchitecture.

The Early Intermediate and Middle Horizon States?

The consensus in the archaeological literature is that states existed in the Andes bythe middle of the first millenniumC.E. (e.g. Berdichewsky 1995/1996, Flannery



1995, 1998, Isbell 1987, Lumbreras 1999, Marcus 1998). For the first time in theAndes, as represented by Moche, we have unequivocal evidence of royal tombsbuilt in restricted-access temples, clear economic specialization, the existence of aroad system, palaces, a warrior-based elite, a regional polity beyond a single val-ley, and a fully urbanized capital. Likewise both Wari and Tiwanaku have palaces,planned urban capitals, high populations, evidence of socioeconomic classes,site-size hierarchies, expansionist policies, agricultural intensification, economicspecialization, and colonial enclaves. The state originated in Moche, Wari, andTiwanaku in the first half of the first millenniumC.E.

SOUTH AMERICA IN COMPARATIVE CONTEXT

Two assumptions about the nature of Andean culture and history underlie archae-ological research in the region. One position views the Andes as culturally andhistorically unique. The position was developed as a coherent theory by Murra(1968, 1972) and continues to hold considerable influence, particularly amongethnohistorians and ethnographers. This body of theory is known as “verticality”or “zonal complementarity.” The basic principle behind this theory is that the “ver-tical” stratification of ecological zones in the Andes has affected the political andeconomic strategies of the pre-Hispanic populations. It furthermore assumes thatthis is unique to the Andes and, as such, has promoted the development of a cultureunderstandable only in its own terms.

According to verticality models, people strategically locate colonies to control adiverse set of ecological zones even in nonstate contexts. This geographical patternallows the “complementary” ecozones to be exploited by a single group or polity.Hypothetically, the resulting distribution of colonies creates an archipelago of iso-lated landholdings over a number of ecological zones. The overlap of archipelagosresults in a complex patchwork of different ethnic groups and political units, cre-ating a socioeconomic system unique to the Andes. Recent work suggests thatthis perspective is not supportable. Throughout the world where the geographyis characterized by a close juxtaposition of different ecological zones, complexpolities have secured economic access by similar strategies.

The opposing perspective assumes that much of Andean history can be under-stood as an example of anthropological processes typical of all human societies.From this perspective, the Andes provides a rich corpus of data to refine our modelsof the evolution of state societies. It provides a number of parallels and contraststo other areas of first-generation state development.

Geography

One difference stands out between the Andes and other areas of first-generationstate evolution. The Andean cultural area, defined conservatively as the limits ofthe Inca state in 1532, is exceptionally long and covers a very rugged territory. Itstretches for over 4000 km up and down western South America. To place this in


56 STANISH

context, this is about the same distance east-west from the Nile to the Indus river,an area that covers three regions of pristine state development in the Old World(including Mesopotamia).

Given the vast distances in the Andean cultural area, a legitimate question can beraised as to whether we should view western South America as having not one butthree different areas of first-generation state development represented by Moche,Wari, and Tiwanaku. Perhaps the very notion of “pristine” state development mustbe challenged, and instead we should find a better control for the relative degreesof cultural autonomy in the formation of archaic states around the world.

Political and Economic Structure

The argument that there were state societies prior to the Middle Horizon is weak.In particular, we can point to the lack of evidence of state-level regional integrationprior to Moche. The model that best characterizes the pre–Middle Horizon politicallandscape is a series of autonomous and semiautonomous polities without anyevidence of complexity beyond that of a chiefdom society.

In contrast, the Moche, Tiwanaku, and Wari polities are similar to other first-generation states around the world. There is good evidence for the replication ofdistinctive artistic, mortuary, and architectural styles in distant regions. Unlike ear-lier periods there is unequivocal evidence for an urbanized capital city. Marcus &Flannery’s (1996) description of Uruk and Teotihuacán can also be used to char-acterize these Andean state polities: the existence of “hyperurban” capital cities,“direct control of an irregular and noncontiguous territory, and distant ‘colonies’or ‘enclaves.’”

Moche, Tiwanaku, and Wari also exhibit classic site-size hierarchies typicalof first-generation states. Albarracin-Jordan (1996) and McAndrews et al (1997)demonstrate a four-tiered site-size hierarchy for Tiwanaku in its core territory.Using more flexible criteria, a six-tiered one is noted in a nearby provincial territory(Stanish et al 1997). Isbell & Schreiber (1978) argue for a four-tiered hierarchyfor Wari. For a major Moche area, Wilson (1988, p. 336) defines a hierarchy ofsites that includes five tiers. In all cases, the number of site-size tiers is greater thanthe preceding periods, which suggests a differentiation of the settlement patternand administrative complexity at the time of state formation.

Population Sizes

The population estimates for Initial period or Early Horizon sites such as Pampade las Llamas-Moxeke and Chav´ın are quite low, around 2000–3000. In contrast,estimates for the later polities such as Moche, Wari, and Tiwanaku are higher,with published populations in the 50,000–200,000 range (Kolata 1993, Schreiber1992).

Johnson & Earle (1987, pp. 230–46) and Earle (1997) offer baseline data onchiefdom and state demographics at the high end of the literature. Simple chief-doms have population levels in the low thousands to tens of thousands. Complex



chiefdoms, at least in Hawaii, have populations between 30,000 and 100,000, whilestates number in the hundreds of thousands to millions. At the other end, Renfrew(1982) has suggested that some small states have as few as 2000 people. Feinman& Neitzel (1984), using comparative data from the Americas, note that almostall middle-range societies have a maximum of 31,000 people. An intermediateestimate by Baker & Sanders (1972) suggests a figure of 48,000 as the thresholdbetween chiefdoms and states. In this regard, the population estimates for hypoth-esized state societies in the Initial and Early Horizon periods is at the very low endof population estimates for archaic states from around the world. The demographicsize proposed for the Middle Horizon polities is more consistent with the averagepopulations estimates in the literature.

Circumscription and Population Pressure

The Pacific coastal valleys can be viewed as incredibly rich “linear oases” thatpierce a virtually uninhabitable desert. These valleys occur at somewhat regularintervals that average around 30 km and constitute classic examples of a circum-scribed environment. The highlands and altiplano, in contrast, are far less circum-scribed. In particular, camelid pastoralism is not restricted to narrow zones but canbe practiced over a very wide area. Unlike the coast, populations had alternativesto a single, rich, and restrictive ecological zone.

Systematic surveys provide data on population growth and densities. Earle(1997, p. 65) notes that in Mantaro valley, “. . . the populations. . . expanded anddeclined in erratic cycles that were not evidently related to resource conditions,” apattern similar to two other case studies he cites in Denmark and Hawaii. The datafit the circumscription model only after the Wari state developed. In the TiticacaBasin, there is a pattern of very slow, continuous growth with a spike in Incaperiod (Albarracin-Jordan & Mathews 1990, Stanish et al 1997). The data fromthese two highland areas support a political economic model (Earle 1987; 1997,p. 119), as opposed to strict population pressure models. Likewise, even on thecoast, there remains little evidence of direct population pressure. Wilson (1988,p. 357), for instance, notes that in the Santa valley, “there is little evidence ofpopulation pressureper sein the pre-state systems. . .,” although he goes on tosuggest that it may have been a factor in other valleys.

In spite of the circumscribed nature of the coastal environment, there is littleevidence for direct population pressure as a factor in state development. This alsoappears to be the case in the highlands. In short, localized population pressuredoes not appear to be a sufficient or necessary cause in Andean state formation.However, at a regional level, there are correlations between population size andstate formation that remain subject to future testing.

Conflict and Warfare

Intergroup conflict is recognized as one of the key factors in the developmentof political complexity (e.g., Marcus & Flannery 1996, p. 157; Redmond 1994).


58 STANISH

Warfare is present on the Andean coast from at least the Early Horizon. Wilson(1999) argues that conflict was present in the Santa valley from the Early Horizonuntil the development of Moche. Pozorski (1987) agrees that warfare was centralto the formation of the first states in Santa and Nepeña but argues that in Casma,little conflict preceded the development of the first “theocratic” states. Conflictdoes occur later on in the Casma with the arrival of a “secular, militaristic state”around 1000B.C.E. (Pozorski 1987). Therefore, if Pampa de las Llamas-Moxekeis considered to be an Initial period state, then warfare was not a factor. If, how-ever, the state did not develop until the late Early Intermediate period, then conflictindeed was a factor in the rise of the state in the Casma valley as well. Iconographicevidence and physical remains unequivocally indicate that conflict and humansacrifice, probably of prisoners, was common in Moche society (Bourget 1997;Donnan & McClelland 1999; Verano et al 1999).

There is little doubt that militarism was a major strategy in Moche expansionon the coast. In the Santa valley, Wilson (1988, p. 333) and Shimada (1987) arguefor a military conquest by the Moche displacing the earlier Gallinazo populations.Defensive architecture is common on Moche period sites throughout the northcoast.

In the highlands, Earle (1997, p. 119) notes that warfare began early in theMantaro valley, subsided with the Wari conquest, then increased again prior toInca conquest. In the Titicaca region, evidence of conflict and the development ofcomplex chiefly society are strongly correlated. In the Early and Middle Formativeperiods, there is little evidence of conflict. Then, in the Upper Formative, manysites were located in defensive positions (but see Topic & Topic 1987), and thereis a pronounced introduction of trophy head and other militaristic iconography onstone stelae and pottery.

Wealth Finance

D’Altroy & Earle (1985) and Earle (1997) argue that central to development ofcomplex society is the creation of a system of finance for state political economies.The key factors include the existence of surplus-producing subject peoples and po-tential efficiency in production. From this perspective, the emergence of archaicstates in South America can be understood as a conjunction of favorable environ-mental zones in a context of gradual population growth. Population spikes tend tooccur after state development, not before. The areas where states first developedhave the greatest capacity for sustained demographic increase and the intensifica-tion of production. As a general rule, the north coast rivers where states took rootare large, while the south coast rivers are not. The few exceptions support the rule;large southern rivers tend to be deeply entrenched and provide less opportunity forirrigation, while smaller northern rivers are connectable by intervalley canals.

As mentioned above, perhaps some of the richest areas in South America arefound on the north Peruvian coast where these large rivers discharge into the sea.Here, the rich riverine resources are combined with the marine resources in the delta



areas. In the highlands, there are many productive zones outside of the TiticacaBasin and north central highlands. However, it is in these two areas where a suite ofhighly productive natural features combine. The Lake Titicaca region has the lakeitself, vast grasslands, rivers, and relatively close access to the eastern slopes. Theuse of raised fields near the lake provide the capacity for agricultural intensification,a technique not available in other areas of the highlands. In the north central Andes,the availability of irrigable land is often cited as one of the primary factors in thedevelopment of complexity and the state in the Andes. Likewise, the highlandareas have access to pasture lands, rivers, and the eastern slopes. All three casesof Moche, Tiwanaku, and Wari state formation are correlated with agriculturalintensification, intensification of exchange relationships, and intensification ofcommodity production, observations that conform to the wealth finance model.

Dynamic Cycling

Marcus (1992, 1993) and Marcus & Flannery (1996) have proposed a dynamicmodel of episodic expansion and collapse of archaic states. State polities emergethrough the incorporation of other groups, creating at least a four-tiered hierarchyof settlement. As one polity peaks and begins to break down, former lower-levelsettlements regain their autonomy, after which the process of consolidation, ex-pansion, and dissolution continues again (Marcus 1998). This model works notonly for the Maya area, where it was originally proposed, but can be successfullyused in many areas of state development around the world, including the Andes.

Data from the Andes support this model. In the Titicaca Basin, Tiwanaku de-veloped after a period of Pucara contraction. After the Tiwanaku collapse, smallerAymara-speaking polities developed throughout the area. Over a 1500-year period,polities expanded and contracted for four cycles, ending with the Inca conquest ofthe region. Likewise, in the north coast, regional research by Billman (1999) andWilson (1988) outline a series of valleys and peaks beginning before the emergenceof the Moche state.

Summary

South America provides an excellent case study for defining the processes offirst-generation state formation. The data indicate that several factors were signifi-cant, including competition and war, high resource concentration in circumscribedenvironments, interregional exchange, the materialization of elite ideologies, andecological conditions conducive to population increases. Factors that do not appearto be significant include local population pressures in circumscribed environments,direct control of irrigation, or other agricultural technologies by an elite. Localizedpopulation spikes appear after the development of state societies. Irrigation sys-tems long predate the development of states. Moche, Wari, and Tiwanaku are notorganizationally identical. There is virtually no evidence for any direct links be-tween Tiwanaku and Moche, except for the most superficial of iconographic data.There are greater links between Moche and Wari, but these are largely iconographic


60 STANISH

as well and related to the fact that Wari seems to have had some political accessto former Moche territory. Moche culture emphasized platform mounds with con-tinual rebuilding, probably on the accension of a new ruler or dynasty. Elaborateelite burials are found in these pyramids. In contrast, we have yet to define a sig-nificant elite burial in Tiwanaku. Likewise, the focus of political ritual appears tobe the “kalasasayas” (stone enclosures) and sunken courts, and not the pyramidsthemselves in Tiwanaku. The highlands and coast have different evolutionary tra-jectories, based in large part on the nature of resource distribution and availabilityand political finance (T. Earle, personal communication). In general, models thatincorporate dynamic cycling and political economic theoretical frameworks bestexplain the evolution of the state in western South America.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank B. Bauer, T. Earle, J. Haas, J. Marcus, M. Moseley, H. Silverman, andK. Schreiber for their gracious assistance on this article.

Visit the Annual Reviews home page at www.AnnualReviews.org

LITERATURE CITED

Albarracin-Jordan J, Mathews JE. 1990.Asen-tamientos Prehispanicos del Valle de Ti-wanaku, Vol. 1. La Paz: Producciones CIMA

Albarracin-Jordan J. 1996.Tiwanaku. Arque-ologıa regional y dinamica segmentaria. LaPaz: Editores Plural

Anderson K, Cespedes Paz R. 1998.Late For-mative to Middle Horizon transition inCochabamba, Bolivia. Presented at Annu.Meet. Soc. Am. Archaeol., Seattle, WA

Baker P, Sanders W. 1972. Demographic stud-ies in anthropology.Annu. Rev. Anthropol.1:151–78

Bandy M. 1999. Systematic surface collection.See Hastorf 1999, pp. 23–26.

Bawden G. 1999.The Moche. Cambridge, UK:Blackwell

Bennett W. 1946. The Andean highlands: anintroduction. InHandbook of South Ameri-can Indians, the Andean Civilizations, ed. JSteward, 2:1–60. Washington, DC: Smithso-nian Inst.

Berdichewsky B. 1995/1996. Surgimiento ycaracter del estado Andino.Dialogo Andino14/15:75–96

Billman B. 1999. Settlement pattern researchin the Americas. Past, present, and future. InSettlement Pattern Studies in the Americas.Fifty Years since Viru, ed. B Billman, G Fein-man, pp. 1–5. Washington, DC: SmithsonianInst.

Bonavia D, Grobman A. 1979. Sistema de de-positos y almacenamiento durante el periodopreceramico en la costa del Perú.J. Soc. Am.66:21–45

Bonnier E, Rozenberg C. 1988. Del santuarioal caser´ıo. Acerca de la neolitización en laCordillera de los Andes centrales.Bull. Inst.Fran. d’etudes And.17(2):23–40

Bourget S. 1997. La colère des ancêtes:decouverte d’un site sacrificie à la Huacade la Luna, vallé de Moche. InA L’Ombredu Cerro Blanco, Nouvelles Decouvertes durla Culture Moche, Cote Nord du Perou,ed. C Chapdelaine, pp. 83–99. Montréal:Cah. Anthropol. 1, Univ. Montréal, Dep.Anthropol.

Burger R. 1988. Unity and heterogeneity withinthe Chav´ın horizon. See Keatinge 1988,pp. 99–144



Burger R. 1989. El horizonte Chav´ın: quimeraestilıstica o metamorfosis socioeconómica?Rev. And.7(2):543–73

Burger R. 1995.Chavın and the Origins of An-dean Civilization. New York: Thames Hud-son

Burger R, Burger LS. 1980. Ritual and religionat Huaricoto.Archaeology33(6):26–32

Carrion Sotelo L. 1998. Excavaciones en SanJacinto, templo en U en el valle de Chancay.Bol. Arq. PUCP2:239–50

Chavez K. 1988. The significance of Chiripa inLake Titicaca Basin developments.Expedi-tion 30(3):17–26

Chavez SJ, Mohr Chávez KL. 1975. A carvedstela from Taraco, Puno, Peru and the defini-tion of an early style of stone sculpture fromthe altiplano of Peru and Bolivia.NawpaPacha13:45–83

Conklin WJ. 1996. La arquitectura de la Huacade Los Reyes.Arkinka10:88–100

Conklin WJ, Moseley ME. 1988. The patternsof art and power in the Early IntermediatePeriod. See Keatinge 1988, pp. 145–63

Cook AG. 1994.Wari y Tiwanaku: entre el es-tilo y la imagen. Lima: Pont. Univ. CatólicaPeru Lima

D’altroy T, Earle T. 1985. Staple finance,wealth finance, and storage in the Inka poli-tical economy.Curr. Anthropol.26(2):187–206

DeMarrais E, Castillo LJ, Earle T. 1996. Ideo-logy, materialization, and power strategies.Curr. Anthropol.37:15–31

Dillehay TD. 1992. Widening the socio-economic foundations of Andean civiliza-tions: prototypes of early monumental archi-tecture.Andean Past3:55–65

Donnan C, ed. 1985.Early Ceremonial Archi-tecture in the Andes. Washington, DC: Dum-barton Oaks

Donnan C, McClelland D. 1999.Moche Fine-line Painting: its Evolution and its Artists.Los Angeles: Fowler Mus. Cult. Hist.

Earle T. 1987. Specialization and the produc-tion of wealth: Hawaiian chiefdoms and theInka empire. InSpecialization, Exchange,and Complex Societies, ed. EM Brumfiel,

TK Earle, pp. 64–75. Cambridge, UK: Cam-bridge Univ. Press

Earle T. 1997.How Chiefs Come to Power: thePolitical Economy in Prehistory. Stanford,CA: Stanford Univ. Press

Engel F. 1987.De las begonias al maız. Vida yproduccion en el Peru antiguo. Lima: Univ.Nac. Agrar. Molina

Erickson C. 1988. Raised field agriculture in theLake Titicaca Basin.Expedition30(3):8–16

Faldın A JD. 1990. La provincia Larecaja y elsistema precolombino del norte de La Paz. InLarecaja, Ayer, Hoy y Manana, pp. 73–90. LaPaz: Com. Cult.

Feinman G, Neitzel J. 1984. Too many types:an overview of sedentary prestate societies inthe Americas.Adv. Archaeol. Theory Method7:39–102

Feinman G, Marcus J, eds. 1998.Archaic Sta-tes. Santa Fe, NM: Sch. Am. Res.

Feldman R. 1987. Architectural evidence forthe development of nonegalitarian social sys-tems in coastal Peru. See Haas et al 1987,pp. 9–14

Flannery KV. 1995. Prehistoric social evolu-tion. In Research Frontiers in Anthropology,ed. M Ember, pp. 1–26. Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice Hall

Flannery KV. 1998. The ground plans of archaicstates. See Feinman & Marcus 1998, pp. 15–57

Flannery KV. 1999. Process and agency in earlystate formation.Cambridge Arch. J.9:(1):3–21

Fogel JA. 1993.Settlements in time: a study ofsocial and political development during theGallinazo occupation of the north coast ofPeru. PhD diss. Yale Univ., New Haven, CT

Fung Pineda R. 1988. The late Preceramic andInitial period. See Keatinge 1988, pp. 67–96

Goldstein P. 1993. Tiwanaku temples and stateexpansion: a Tiwanaku sunken-court templein Moquegua, Peru.Lat. Am. Antiq.4(1):22–47

Goldstein P. 1995/1996. Tiwanaku settlementpatterns of the Azapa Valley, Chile. Newdata, and the legacy of Percy Dauelsberg.Dialogo Andino14/15:57–73


62 STANISH

Grieder T. 1975. A dated sequence of build-ing and pottery at Las Haldas.Nawpa Pacha13:99–112

Grieder T. 1988. Burial patterns and offerings.See Grieder et al, 1988a, pp. 73–102

Grieder T, Bueno Mendoza A. 1985. Ceremo-nial architecture at La Galgalda. See Donnan1985, pp. 93–109

Grieder T, Bueno Mendoza M, Smith CE Jr,Malina RM, eds. 1988a.La Galgada, Peru.A Preceramic Culture in Transition. Austin:Univ. Texas Press

Grieder T, Bueno Mendoza M, Smith CE Jr,Malina RM. 1988b. La Galgada in the worldof its time. See Grieder et al 1988a, pp. 192–203

Guffroy J. 1989. Un centro ceremonial forma-tivo en el Alto Piura.Bull. Inst. Fran. d’etudesAnd.18(2):161–207

Haas J. 1987. The exercise of power in early An-dean state development. See Haas et al 1987,pp. 31–35

Haas J, Pozorski S, Pozorski T, eds. 1987.The Origins and Development of the AndeanState. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ.Press

Hastorf C, ed. 1999.Early Settlement atChiripa, Bolivia. Berkeley: Contrib. Univ.Calif. Archaeol. Res. Facil.

Higueras-Hare A. 1996.Prehispanic settlementand land use in Cochabamba. PhD diss.Univ. Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA

Isbell W. 1987. State origins in the Ayacu-cho Valley, central highlands, Peru. See Haaset al 1987, pp. 83–90

Isbell W, Brewster-Wray C, Spickard L.1991. Architecture and spatial organiza-tion at Huari. See Isbell & McEwan 1991,pp. 19–53

Isbell W, McEwan G, eds. 1991.Huari Admin-istrative Structure: Prehistoric MonumentalArchitecture and State Government. Wash-ington, DC: Dumbarton Oak

Isbell W, Schreiber K. 1978. Was Huari a state?Am. Antiq.43:372–89

Izumi S, Terada K. 1972.Andes 4: Excavationsat Kotosh,Peru,1963 and 1966. Tokyo: Univ.Tokyo Press

Janusek JW. 1999. Craft and local power: em-bedded specialization in Tiwanaku cities.Lat. Am. Antiq.10(2):107–31

Johnson A, Earle TK. 1987.The Evolutionof Human Society. Stanford, CA: StanfordUniv. Press

Keatinge R, ed. 1988.Peruvian Prehistory.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press

Kidder A II. 1943. Some Early Sites in thenorthern Lake Titicaca Basin. Pap. PeabodyMus., Harvard Univ.:1

Kolata A. 1986. The agricultural foundationsof the Tiwanaku state: a view from the heart-land.Am. Antiq.51(4):748–62

Kolata A. 1993.The Tiwanaku. London: Black-well

Kolata A, Ponce S C. 1992. Tiwanaku: the cityat the center. InThe Ancient Americas, ed.R Townsend, pp. 317–33. Chicago: Art Inst.Chicago

Lumbreras LG. 1981.Arqueologıa de la Amer-ica Andina. Lima: Editorial Milla Batres

Lumbreras LG. 1999. Andean urbanism andstatecraft (CE 550–1450). InThe Cam-bridge History of the Native Peoples ofthe Americans,: South America, Part 1,Vol. 3, ed. F Salomon, SB Schwartz, pp.518–76. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ.Press

Marcus J. 1992. Dynamic cycles of Mesoamer-ican states: political fluctuations in Meso-america.Natl. Geog. Res. Explor.8:392–411

Marcus J. 1993. Ancient Maya political organi-zation. InLowland Maya Civilization in theEighth Century A.D., ed J Sabloff, J Hender-son, pp. 111–83. Washington, DC: Dumbar-ton Oaks

Marcus J. 1998. The peaks and valleys of an-cient states: an extension of the dynamicmodel. See Feinman & Marcus 1998, pp. 59–94

Marcus J, Flannery K. 1996.Zapotec Civiliza-tion: How Urban Society Evolved in Mex-ico’s Oaxaca Valley. London: Thames Hud-son

McAndrews T, Albarracin-Jordan J, BermannB. 1997. Regional settlement patterns in the



Tiwanaku Valley of Bolivia.J. Field Arch.24:67–83

McEwan G. 1991. Investigations at the Pikil-lacta site: a provincial Huari center in thevalley of Cuzco. See Isbell & McEwan 1991,pp. 93–119

Meddens F. 1991. A provincial perspectiveon Huari organization viewed from theChicha/Soras Valley. See Isbell & McEwan1991, pp. 215–31

Moseley ME. 1975.The Maritime Foundationsof Andean Civilization. Menlo Park, CA:Cummings

Moseley ME. 1985. The exploration and ex-planation of early monumental architecturein the Andes. See Donnan 1985, pp. 29–57

Moseley ME. 1992a.The Incas and their An-cestors. London: Thames Hudson

Moseley ME. 1992b. Maritime foundationsand multilinear evolution: retrospect andprospect.Andean Past3:5–42

Murra JV. 1968. An Aymara Kingdom in 1567.Ethnohistory(15):115–51

Murra JV. 1972. El’control vertical’ de unmaximo de pisos ecológicos en la econom´ıade las sociedades Andinas. InVisita de laProvincia de Leon de Huanuco en 1562.Documentos por la Historia y Etnologıade Huanuco y la Selva Central2:427–76.Huanuco: Univ. Nac. Hermilio Valdizan

Plourde A. 1999.The role of inter-regional ex-change in Pucara and Tiwanaku state for-mation and expansion, northeastern TiticacaBasin, Peru. Presented at the Annu. Meet.Soc. Am. Arch., Chicago, IL

Pozorski S. 1987. Theocracy vs. militarism: thesignificance of the Casma Valley in under-standing early state formation. See Haas et al1987, pp. 15–30

Pozorski S, Pozorski T. 1994. Early Andeancities.Sci. Am.270(6):66–72

Pozorski T, Pozorski S. 1987. Chavin, the EarlyHorizon and the Initial Period. See Haas et al1987, pp. 36–46

Pozorski T, Pozorski S. 1990. Huaynuná, a LateCotton Preceramic site on the north coast ofPeru.J. Field Arch.17:17–26

Quilter J. 1985. Architecture and chronology atEl Para´ıso, Peru.J. Field Arch.12:279–97

Quilter J. 1991a. Problems with the late Prece-ramic of Peru.Am. Anthropol.93:450–54

Quilter J. 1991b. Late Preceramic Peru.J. WorldPrehist.5:387–438

Quilter J, Ojeda EB, Pearsall DM, SandweissDH, Jones JG, Wing ES. 1991. Subsistenceeconomy of El Para´ıso, an early Peruviansite.Science251:277–83

Quilter J, Stocker T. 1983. Subsistence eco-nomies and the origins of Andean complexsocieties.Am. Anthropol.(85):545–62

Redmond EM. 1994. External warfare and theinternal politics of northern South Americantribes and chiefdoms. InFactional Compe-tition and Political Development in the NewWorld, ed. EM Brumfiel, JW Fox, pp. 44–54.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press

Renfrew C. 1982. Polity and power: interac-tion, intensification, and exploitation. InAnIsland Polity: The Archaeology of Exploita-tion in Melos, ed. C Renfrew, M Wagstaff,pp. 264–90. Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniv. Press

Rick JW, Kembel SR, Mendoza Rick R,Kembel JA. 1998. La arquitectura del com-plejo ceremonial de Chav´ın de Huantar: doc-umentación tridimensional y sus implican-cias.Bol. Arq. PUCP2:181–214

Samaniego L, Vergara E, Bischof H. 1985.New evidence on Cerro Sech´ın, Casma Val-ley, Peru. See Donnan 1985, pp. 165–90

Schreiber K. 1987. Conquest and consolidation:a comparison of the Wari and Inka occupa-tions of a highland Peruvian valley.Am. An-tiq. 52:266–84

Schreiber K. 1992.Wari Imperialism in MiddleHorizon Peru, Anthropol. Pap. No. 87. AnnArbor: Mus. Anthropol. Univ. Mich.

Schreiber K. 2001. The Wari empire of MiddleHorizon Peru: the epistemological challengeof documenting an empire without documen-tary evidence. InEmpires, eds. S Alcock, TD’Altroy, K Morrison, C Sinopoli, pp. 70–92. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press

Shady R. 1993. Del Arcaico al Formativo en losAndes Centrales.Rev. And.21:103–32


64 STANISH

Shimada I. 1987. Horizontal and vertical di-mensions of prehistoric states in north Peru.See Haas et al 1987, pp. 130–44

Shimada I. 1994.Pampa Grande and theMochica Culture. Austin: Univ. Texas Press

Silva Santisteban F. 1997.Desarrollo polıticoen las sociedades de la civilizacion Andina.Lima: Univ. Lima

Silverman H. 1990. The Early Nasca pilgrim-age center of Cahuachi and the Nasca lines:anthropological and archaeological perspec-tives. InThe Lines of Nasca, ed. A Aveni, pp.209–304. Philadelphia: Am. Phila. Soc.

Silverman H. 1991. The ethnography and ar-chaeology of two Andean pilgrimage cen-ters. InPilgrimage in Latin America, ed. NRCrumrine, A Morinis, pp. 215–28. Westport,CT: Greenwood

Silverman H. 1995. Recent archaeological in-vestigations on the south coast of Peru: cri-tique and prospects.J. Steward Anthropol.Soc.23(1,2):13–41

Silverman H. 1996. The formative period on thesouth coast of Peru: a critical review.J. WorldPrehist.10(2):95–146

Stanish C. 1994. The hydraulic hypothesis re-visited: a theoretical perspective on Lake Tit-icaca Basin raised field agriculture.Lat. Am.Antiq.5(4):312–32

Stanish C, de la Vega E, Steadman L, ChávezJC, Frye KL, et al. 1997.ArchaeologicalSurvey in the Juli-Desaguadero Area, LakeTiticaca Basin, Peru. Fieldiana Anthropol.,NS 29. Chicago, IL: Field Mus.

Stanish C, Steadman LH. 1994.Archaeologi-cal Research at the Site of Tumatumani Juli,Peru. Fieldiana Anthropol., NS 23, Chicago,IL: Field Mus.

Tello JC. 1956. Arqueologıa del valle deCasma: culturas Chavın, Santa o HuaylasYunga, y sub-Chimu. Pub. Antropol. Arch.“Julio C Tello”. Lima: Univ. Nac. MayorSan Marcos

Topic J, Topic T. 1987. The archaeological in-vestigation of Andean militarism: some cau-

tionary observations. See Haas et al 1987, pp.47–55

Torero A. 1990. Procesos lingüısticos e iden-tificacion de dioses en los Andes centrales.Rev. And.8(1):237–63

Uceda S, Mujica E. 1998. Nuevas evidenciaspara viejos problemas: a manera de intro-duccion. In Investigaciones en la Huaca dela Luna 1996, ed. S Uceda, E Mujica, RMorales, pp. 9–16. Trujillo: Facult. Cienc.Soc. Unin. Nac. Lib.

Vega-Centeno R, Villacorta LF, Cáceres LE,Marcone G. 1998. Arquitectura monumentaltemprana en el valle medio de Fortaleza.Bol.Arq. PUCP2:219–38

Verano JW, Uceda S, Chapdelaine C, TelloR, Paredes MI, Pimentel V. 1999. Modifiedhuman skulls from the urban sector of thepyramids of Moche, northern Peru.Lat. Am.Antiq.10(1):59–70

Von Hagen A, Morris C. 1998.The Cities of theAncient Andes. New York: Thames Hudson

Wheeler J, Mujica E. 1981. Prehistoric pas-toralism in the Lake Titicaca Basin, Peru1979–1980 field season.Natl. Sci. Found. Fi-nal Rep.

Willey GR. 1971.An Introduction to AmericanArchaeology, Vol. 2. South America. Engle-wood Cliffs: Prentice Hall

Williams C. 1971. Centros ceremoniales tem-pranos en el valle de Chillón, Rımac y Lurın.Apuntes Arqueol.1:1–4

Wilson D. 1981. Of maize and men: a critiqueof the maritime hypothesis of state origins onthe coast of Peru.Am. Antiq.83:93–120

Wilson D. 1988.Prehispanic Settlement Pat-terns in the Lower Santa Valley, Peru: A Re-gional Perspective on the Origins and De-velopment of Complex North Coast Society.Washington, DC: Smithsonian Inst.

Wilson DJ. 1999.Indigenous South Americansof the Past and Present: an Ecological Per-spective. Boulder, CO: Westview

Wissler C. 1922.The American Indian. NewYork: Oxford Univ. Press.

Date post:	16-Jan-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	benedicto-de-nursia
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

The Origin of State Societies in South America

Documents